Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Good point.
Odd isn't it: dont think he's even made the 23 has he?
Wonder why no oz province wanted him
Where to for Super Rugby?
- Thread starter Quick Hands
- Start date
- Status
Good point.
Odd isn't it: dont think he's even made the 23 has he?
Wonder why no oz province wanted him
Strewthcobber
Simon Poidevin (60)
I assume it's because he still doesn't have any knees
Brumby Runner
Jason Little (69)
Posted this in the Rebels thread, but is relevant to this thread as well:-
Can someone please enlighten me as to why the Rebels would be quarantined from being cut just because they have private equity involved, when that equity can pull out at any moment as it is more than likely to do when it doesn't turn a profit year after year? Must be nigh on impossible for a Super Rugby franchise in Aus to consistently turn a profit, especially in a market which has no history or stability in following rugby as a sport.
I would say that no matter whether the Force or Brumbies are cut, in the event one franchise has to go, then the Rebels will also fold in the next couple of years as the private owner (and why do the Rebels' fans call him Coxy? Are they all personal friends of his - I am bloody sure it will be that bastard Cox once he pulls the pin) gets sick and tired of shelling out his hard earned on a failing enterprise. And remember, he has a "get out of jail card" in the deal that allows him to withdraw at any time that suits him.
I am dead set against any of the Aus franchises getting the flick, but the thought of the Brumbies either being shafted or moved to Melbourne is just mind boggling. Unfortunately, the way I see it, it is almost inevitable that the commercial realities will see the Rebels go under within a few short years. If the Brumbies were to relocate, they would go down the same gurgler in time.
Can someone please enlighten me as to why the Rebels would be quarantined from being cut just because they have private equity involved, when that equity can pull out at any moment as it is more than likely to do when it doesn't turn a profit year after year? Must be nigh on impossible for a Super Rugby franchise in Aus to consistently turn a profit, especially in a market which has no history or stability in following rugby as a sport.
I would say that no matter whether the Force or Brumbies are cut, in the event one franchise has to go, then the Rebels will also fold in the next couple of years as the private owner (and why do the Rebels' fans call him Coxy? Are they all personal friends of his - I am bloody sure it will be that bastard Cox once he pulls the pin) gets sick and tired of shelling out his hard earned on a failing enterprise. And remember, he has a "get out of jail card" in the deal that allows him to withdraw at any time that suits him.
I am dead set against any of the Aus franchises getting the flick, but the thought of the Brumbies either being shafted or moved to Melbourne is just mind boggling. Unfortunately, the way I see it, it is almost inevitable that the commercial realities will see the Rebels go under within a few short years. If the Brumbies were to relocate, they would go down the same gurgler in time.
The torpedo
Peter Fenwicke (45)
Well the papers are saying Diggers could be selected vs the reds
swingpass
Peter Sullivan (51)
he is unfortunately and what a waste of money/roster position
Rugbynutter39
Michael Lynagh (62)
I think the ARU pushing for the 3 x 6 team conference is sensible option, with more local derbies and games against others in finals.
More local derbies - yes please.
Also better to give all 18 sides a go in revised format before cutting.
Sunwolves as part of Australian Conference makes sense...
Tran - Tasman league whilst I get it - NZ's love for Saffa rugby means probably won't happen.
I also like if media correct ARU's position on 15 or 18 teams but not 16 teams.
More local derbies - yes please.
Also better to give all 18 sides a go in revised format before cutting.
Sunwolves as part of Australian Conference makes sense...
Tran - Tasman league whilst I get it - NZ's love for Saffa rugby means probably won't happen.
I also like if media correct ARU's position on 15 or 18 teams but not 16 teams.
Teh Other Dave
Alan Cameron (40)
Not 100% sure of the wisdom of the 3 x 6 system - what about the people that the kiwi teams bring through the turnstiles?
p.Tah
John Thornett (49)
They still came when we had 3x5 system
waiopehu oldboy
George Smith (75)
Said it before, but I'll say it again.....
3 x 6 ain't gunna happen unless it's somehow constructed such that SA teams don't spend twice as long in Australasia as Australasian sides spend in Sethfricka AND they (SA) get two home QF regardless of where their teams finish in the overall scheme of things.
They've been VERY consistent & VERY, VERY vocal on those points since pretty much 2000 & having finally achieved both they ain't giving up either let alone both without a fight. A fight Straya can't win & I don't think NZRU even want, given their equally long-standing & apparently non-negotiable (if questionable) requirement for as much contact as possible with SA sides at every level.
As also previously stated, personally I'd dump SA for a trans-Tasman comp without hesitation IF IT WERE VIABLE but I just can't see that being the case during the current & probably next TV rights cycle.
Also, even if NZRU were to have a bout of temporary insanity & allow players contracted to them in the first instance to go play elsewhere in Super Rugby, I doubt you'd get much uptake within the top 60 or so players so effectively it'd just be status quo, the only ones who'd take it up would be the M10 guys with little or no chance of an NZR/Super Rugby gig (e.g. Hawera & Garden-Bachop) or the ones who're like ninth in the AB/ Maori AB pecking order (e.g. Kara Pryor, Kane Hames).
3 x 6 ain't gunna happen unless it's somehow constructed such that SA teams don't spend twice as long in Australasia as Australasian sides spend in Sethfricka AND they (SA) get two home QF regardless of where their teams finish in the overall scheme of things.
They've been VERY consistent & VERY, VERY vocal on those points since pretty much 2000 & having finally achieved both they ain't giving up either let alone both without a fight. A fight Straya can't win & I don't think NZRU even want, given their equally long-standing & apparently non-negotiable (if questionable) requirement for as much contact as possible with SA sides at every level.
As also previously stated, personally I'd dump SA for a trans-Tasman comp without hesitation IF IT WERE VIABLE but I just can't see that being the case during the current & probably next TV rights cycle.
Also, even if NZRU were to have a bout of temporary insanity & allow players contracted to them in the first instance to go play elsewhere in Super Rugby, I doubt you'd get much uptake within the top 60 or so players so effectively it'd just be status quo, the only ones who'd take it up would be the M10 guys with little or no chance of an NZR/Super Rugby gig (e.g. Hawera & Garden-Bachop) or the ones who're like ninth in the AB/ Maori AB pecking order (e.g. Kara Pryor, Kane Hames).
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
Assuming the format was home and away within your conference and 3 matches against the other 2 conferences, South African teams would play 3 matches overseas in 2 or 3 of Australia, Japan, NZ or Argentina.
The Australian and Kiwi teams would play an away game against the international team in their conference (Japan or Argentina), 1 or 2 matches in South Africa (alternating each year between 1 and 2), and potentially an away match against the international team within the other Australasian conference.
The Australian and Kiwi teams would play an away game against the international team in their conference (Japan or Argentina), 1 or 2 matches in South Africa (alternating each year between 1 and 2), and potentially an away match against the international team within the other Australasian conference.
N
NTT
Guest
Theres an easy solution to how super rugby should be operating that gets rid of the silly conference system that is the root of the problem in the eyes of viewers and the casual fan. It would also increase the number of games each franchise hosted to increase financial stability which is what the franchises want. This solution works on the premise that the international window in June is moved to later in July.
1 : 18 teams - everyone plays each other once per season for 17 games.
This keeps the current timeframe for the comp the same.
2 : Play each other home one year, away the next.
This gives each franchise 8 or 9 home matches each year increasing gate revenue.
3 : Introduce a top 8 that is points based so the best teams make it.
No more guaranteed spots to underperformed teams.
4 : Have a split round mid year to accommodate rest weeks for the already over loaded top end players.
It is simple to understand, it is fairer as it rewards performance and it fits into current broadcasting arrangements. It provides each franchise with extra revenue from more home matches. Also, no team needs to be culled.
July test matches should be arranged so that Australia, New Zealand and South Africa play a 2 match series against Tonga, Samoa and Fiji to prepare for the Rugby Championship. First year Australia vs Tonga, NZ vs Samoa and South Africa vs Fiji.
Second year Australia vs Samoa, NZ vs Fiji and South Africa vs Tonga. Third year Australia vs Fiji, NZ vs Tonga and South Africa vs Samoa. Keep repeating this pattern. This gives the pacific island nations more matches versus the top teams to aid their development. Argentina plays their warm up matches vs the USA, Canada and Japan which does the same for their development. These sides also rotate so the other 2 teams play each other too, Argentina vs USA and Canada vs Japan first year. Argentina vs Canada and USA vs Japan the second year. Argentina vs Japan and Canada vs USA the third year. Rinse and repeat.
The November Tests should then be played home and away. One season the Sanzaar teams head north, the next year the 6 nations teams head south. This measure combined with the July test match schedule ensure each of the top nations plays as many as 7 or 8 of the other top 10 nations in the world regularly and provide enough interest for ex pats in each country aswell as more diverse rugby being played as each nation has their own style to their rugby.
1 : 18 teams - everyone plays each other once per season for 17 games.
This keeps the current timeframe for the comp the same.
2 : Play each other home one year, away the next.
This gives each franchise 8 or 9 home matches each year increasing gate revenue.
3 : Introduce a top 8 that is points based so the best teams make it.
No more guaranteed spots to underperformed teams.
4 : Have a split round mid year to accommodate rest weeks for the already over loaded top end players.
It is simple to understand, it is fairer as it rewards performance and it fits into current broadcasting arrangements. It provides each franchise with extra revenue from more home matches. Also, no team needs to be culled.
July test matches should be arranged so that Australia, New Zealand and South Africa play a 2 match series against Tonga, Samoa and Fiji to prepare for the Rugby Championship. First year Australia vs Tonga, NZ vs Samoa and South Africa vs Fiji.
Second year Australia vs Samoa, NZ vs Fiji and South Africa vs Tonga. Third year Australia vs Fiji, NZ vs Tonga and South Africa vs Samoa. Keep repeating this pattern. This gives the pacific island nations more matches versus the top teams to aid their development. Argentina plays their warm up matches vs the USA, Canada and Japan which does the same for their development. These sides also rotate so the other 2 teams play each other too, Argentina vs USA and Canada vs Japan first year. Argentina vs Canada and USA vs Japan the second year. Argentina vs Japan and Canada vs USA the third year. Rinse and repeat.
The November Tests should then be played home and away. One season the Sanzaar teams head north, the next year the 6 nations teams head south. This measure combined with the July test match schedule ensure each of the top nations plays as many as 7 or 8 of the other top 10 nations in the world regularly and provide enough interest for ex pats in each country aswell as more diverse rugby being played as each nation has their own style to their rugby.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
I like it but doubt the internationals would be agreed to by anyone concerned. Except the sland nations.
dru
David Wilson (68)
Could EVERYBODY on this thread take a time out, re-read WoB? Cogitate. Sleep on it. And come back and read it again. Go on, just do it.
---
WoB, unfortunately my assessment is therefore, in the absence of change from NZ and SA, there is simply nothing in the SANZAR offer that stops the slow drag of Aussie rugby into putrescence.
It will be painfull, but a time to cut and run is inevitable. The question here should be a) is it now? B) how?
T
TOCC
Guest
More people in favour of the Champions League concept
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro
T
TOCC
Guest
This would see Australian teams disappear to South Africa for 3 games(1 month) each season, its bad enough now with the Waratahs playing one game in Sydney before disappearing for 3 weeks, but 4 weeks on the road is a marketing block hole and a PR/sponsorship vortex. Throw in the Jaguares and teams could be on the other side of the world for up to 5 weeks a season.
By playing every team home and away, you are also swapping higher crowd drawing local derbies for matches against South African teams, which aren't historically big crowd pullers.
Omar Comin'
Chilla Wilson (44)
My point was just that if a NZ team was interested in signing Ben Volavola then there'd be dozens of Australian players good enough to get a gig over there if we opened up the player market to some extent between Australia and NZ.
Australian fans seem to like the idea of more Australian derbies (and certainly they tend to draw more fans, although at least from a Waratahs perspective, that depends on who the opposition is. War v Bru and War v Red are bigger drawcards than Force and Rebels games).
Australian derbies tend to be some of the worst games though. We obviously have to get better so we are more competitive against NZ teams but if I went through the last few seasons of Tahs home games and ranked them from best to worst I would say that the vast majority of the top 10 games were against NZ teams. There were a couple of notable crackers against South African teams and then a bunch of shockers against Australian teams.
I think clearly the plan for Super Rugby was to expand beyond 18 teams but that would seem impossible on the back of the complete lack of competitiveness from the Sunwolves and Kings and the fact that the Jaguares were poor when everyone thought they'd be title contenders. You can't now expand into new markets that could be even less competitive. It won't help the competition at all.
If we were to stay with 18 teams and go to 3 conferences of 6 as has been suggested, I wouldn't be pushing for home and away against all the conference rivals. It's too many games that don't tend to be that exciting for Aussie fans. 10 games is 2/3 of the season.
Maybe 8 against your conference, and 4 each against the other two conferences would be the best balance (adding one round to the regular season).
Australian derbies tend to be some of the worst games though. We obviously have to get better so we are more competitive against NZ teams but if I went through the last few seasons of Tahs home games and ranked them from best to worst I would say that the vast majority of the top 10 games were against NZ teams. There were a couple of notable crackers against South African teams and then a bunch of shockers against Australian teams.
I think clearly the plan for Super Rugby was to expand beyond 18 teams but that would seem impossible on the back of the complete lack of competitiveness from the Sunwolves and Kings and the fact that the Jaguares were poor when everyone thought they'd be title contenders. You can't now expand into new markets that could be even less competitive. It won't help the competition at all.
If we were to stay with 18 teams and go to 3 conferences of 6 as has been suggested, I wouldn't be pushing for home and away against all the conference rivals. It's too many games that don't tend to be that exciting for Aussie fans. 10 games is 2/3 of the season.
Maybe 8 against your conference, and 4 each against the other two conferences would be the best balance (adding one round to the regular season).
N
NTT
Guest
The most recent evidence suggests that derby matches between Australian teams do not rate well on TV in Australia, Force v Reds match being out rated by the NZ match. No matter the tournament, teams will have to travel, thats just a fact of life in a 5 country tournament. Touring in blocks makes the most logistical sense to combat the distance. Like it or not the evidence is there that South Africa pulls in the most TV money selling matches into Europe, this model accommodates for this. New Zealand see South Africa as just as big a rival as they see Australia, this model accommodates that.
Some people want more local derbies, some people want an easy to understand competition. One will have to be compromised and i think it should be the derbies as they could be the driving force behind the marketing of the NRC, NPC and Currie Cup, competitions specifically set up to provide local derbies. Super Rugby is about, and always has been about, the interprovincial aspect of the matches where the teams get the opportunity to play the other best provinces from the southern hemisphere. I truly believe that South African fans want to see South African teams playing Australian and New Zealand opposition as the crowd figures suggest. In Perth, matches versus NZ and South African teams always have the highest gates and attendances. This engages the expats and is a better revenue source than an all Aussie derby for the ARU. The only people who want to see NSW vs Qld is NSW and Qld. The kiwis don't really care about that match and nor do the South Africans. Also we're talking an increased tv audience of 10-20 000 more viewers, not huge numbers.
The NRC should be pumped up as the main source of intrastate rugby in Australia, not super rugby. Whats the point of having 2 competitions of different constitution, providing a double up of content? The NPC and Currie Cup have always been built on the in house rivalries, Super Rugby has always been about crossing over the provinces of the member unions. When Super Rugby lost sight of what it is fundamentally about, they lost sight of what the tournaments purpose is, the best southern hemisphere provinces playing against the best southern hemisphere provinces in a crossover tournament. Local derbies have always been provided by each countries domestic competition. Separating the 2 back to those fundamental purposes will be the winning formula.
- Status